Re: [regext] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: (with DISCUSS)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Earlier today I took this document off the telechat and out of IESG
Evaluation state.

Barry

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration-11: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I’m not certain about the intended status of this document. I understand that
> this was discussed in the group but this document does specify a protocol
> extension and as such Proposed Standard or Experimental would be the two usual
> choices. The shepherd write-up mentions that this extension only has a limited
> scope, however, not sure what that is supposed to mean and it also doesn’t
> seems a good reason for informational (but experimental maybe). There are
> informational RFCs that document protocols of existing deployments for
> informational purposed only, meaning that there is a good reason to have a
> description of an existing protocol in a stable reference while the process of
> publishing the RFC would not change any technical means of that protocol but
> only document what’s out there. Usually these kind of RFC have a title like
> “Campany’s X protocol for something”. However, this seems not to be the case
> here or at least it's not clear from the content of the document.
>
>
>
>